This
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 12 January 2022 and 13 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Kj3gomez, Ahanson11020.
Just a quick note to whoever keeps reverting the article to refer to Leonardo da Vinci as simply "da Vinci": that is not Leonardo's surname, any more than "of Nazareth" was Jesus's surname. This whole nonsense started with Dan Brown. The proper way to refer to him is either as Leonardo or Leonardo da Vinci. Mpaniello ( talk) 19:49, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
It's rather you who have to provide evidence that Leonardo was ever referred to simply as Da Vinci prior to the Dan Brown book. There is a centuries-old tradition of referring to Renaissance painters by their forenames only: Michelangelo, Titian, Raphael, and yes, Leonardo. Look at the other names in the paragraph as well: why not just give their surnames? If anything, the paragraph should be consistent, questions of correct usages aside. Mpaniello ( talk) 22:12, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
ETA: Here, if you look in any dictionary of fine arts or artists, you'll always find Leonardo in the L section, not in the D section. Other artists are given by surnames (e.g., Picasso, Pablo), but Leonardo is given as Leonardo da Vinci, not Da Vinci, Leonardo. Check out this link to Oxford Art Online: https://www.oxfordartonline.com/search?q=leonardo+da+vinci&searchBtn=Search&isQuickSearch=true
Besides, the "da Vinci" part doesn't even refer to Leonardo but rather his father: his full name was Leonardo di ser Piero da Vinci, or Leonardo, son of ser Piero of Vinci. Calling him "Da Vinci" (oh, and the "d" is never supposed to be capitalized) would be like giving Joe, son of Bob from Akron the surname "From Akron." Surnames as we use them today didn't exist in Leonardo's time, so the whole "Da Vinci" thing is an attempt to shoehorn Renaissance names into a 20th-/21st-century template. Mpaniello ( talk) 22:34, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
No, my argument is that Da Vinci was not *Leonardo da Vinci's* surname, nor has it ever been accepted as such outside of the confusion caused by Dan Brown. It doesn't matter in the slightest if anybody else has had Da Vinci as a surname; the only point relevant to this discussion is that Leonardo didn't. But anyway, I provided you with a source, and if you check out any online (or printed) art dictionary or encyclopedia you'll see the same thing. Mpaniello ( talk) 23:30, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
ETA: I just looked at your link, and they only give two people with the surname, and one of them is a stage name. The other one is incorrectly given as the surname of Pierino, the nephew of Leonardo. However, Vasari, the source of the article, doesn't give it as his surname. Most importantly, though, the list of people with the surname Da Vinci doesn't list Leonardo, so your link only supports my argument. Mpaniello ( talk) 23:36, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
This is not merely a nonsensical argument, but a sloppy one. Obviously you don't like the construction, and I agree it's no more proper grammar than any other use of a placename as a surname, but COMMONNAME is clear, and your personal approval here is not required. I advise you to drop the stick. Ravenswing 00:28, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
Ravenswing, da Vinci is not a proper name nor has it ever been used or accepted as such by anyone other than Dan Brown and those who take his words at face value. You've been working under a faulty assumption. Don't take my word for it, do a bit of research. Read some online dictionaries and encyclopedias of art and artists and tell me how many of them put Leonardo under D or V instead of L. Just one credible source, please. Mpaniello ( talk) 00:38, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
No, you aren't paying attention. You list a bunch of *modern* place names in support of your argument, but they're neither here nor there: Da Vinci has never been accepted as *Leonardo da Vinci's* surname. The practice was popularized by Dan Brown's book, which is why I keep mentioning it. The only point that matters is that Da Vinci has never been accepted as *Leonardo da Vinci's* surname, any more than Of Nazareth has been accepted as Jesus's surname. Again, look in any dictionary or encyclopedia or artists and tell me how many list him under D or V instead of L. Just one source, please. Mpaniello ( talk) 00:58, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
(1) I don't know where you got the idea from that the governing factor for WP:COMMONNAME is what is in art history books, but that is utterly, utterly false. It's what's in all English-language sources. A high school or a Martian crater named "Da Vinci" matter exactly as much towards establishing common usage as the Oxford Dictionary of Art History.
(2) As such, whether Brown's book (which I've never read and which was published when I was in my forties) has impelled more people to believe that "da Vinci" was a surname as we know it is utterly, frigging irrelevant. COMMONNAME -- and Wikipedia -- is blissfully unconcerned with the motives or rationales as to why people/institutions/entities use names the way they do, or the dates upon which they start doing so. It's entirely a binary deal: do they or don't they?
(3) Your stipulation that the mere construction of "da Vinci" has never been accepted as a surname is false on the face of it, and also false generally. There are numerous counterexamples to your argument, including Palestrina, Ockeghem, de Ventadorn, de Girona, de Troyes, de Machaut, de Wycombe, da Correggio, and so many others. What is "accepted" (or not) as da Vinci's surname is not your unilateral decision to make, any more than the common practice of identifying medieval and High Renaissance figures by placenames -- or the use of territorial surnames generally, a practice over a thousand years old -- is yours to overturn.
(4) You are required to obtain consensus for contentious changes. We do not need to refute your premise to your satisfaction; you need to prove your premise to the satisfaction of a consensus. If you do not obtain that consensus, your only legitimate option is to lose gracefully and move on. Ravenswing 01:45, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
This might not be the construction you yourself prefer, or you yourself think is right, but that's not the issue. The issue is whether there's consensus to change every such construction on Wikipedia to support your preference. So far, no such consensus has materialized. Ravenswing 03:12, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
This is such a specious argument. It's like saying Leif Erikson's last name isn't his surname because it just translates to "son of Erik." GMAB. Toddst1 ( talk) 04:16, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
@ Mpaniello:, I don't care what Lenny's last name is (if he has one), but do wish you'd stop edit-warring over the topic. Recommend the article be restored to its status-quo, then iron out a consensus 'here' for what to do, while the page is under protection. GoodDay ( talk) 22:15, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
add a short description {{short description|Technology used in midieval Europe}}
.
lettherebedarklight,
晚安,
おやすみなさい,
ping me when replying
13:36, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
This
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 12 January 2022 and 13 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Kj3gomez, Ahanson11020.
Just a quick note to whoever keeps reverting the article to refer to Leonardo da Vinci as simply "da Vinci": that is not Leonardo's surname, any more than "of Nazareth" was Jesus's surname. This whole nonsense started with Dan Brown. The proper way to refer to him is either as Leonardo or Leonardo da Vinci. Mpaniello ( talk) 19:49, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
It's rather you who have to provide evidence that Leonardo was ever referred to simply as Da Vinci prior to the Dan Brown book. There is a centuries-old tradition of referring to Renaissance painters by their forenames only: Michelangelo, Titian, Raphael, and yes, Leonardo. Look at the other names in the paragraph as well: why not just give their surnames? If anything, the paragraph should be consistent, questions of correct usages aside. Mpaniello ( talk) 22:12, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
ETA: Here, if you look in any dictionary of fine arts or artists, you'll always find Leonardo in the L section, not in the D section. Other artists are given by surnames (e.g., Picasso, Pablo), but Leonardo is given as Leonardo da Vinci, not Da Vinci, Leonardo. Check out this link to Oxford Art Online: https://www.oxfordartonline.com/search?q=leonardo+da+vinci&searchBtn=Search&isQuickSearch=true
Besides, the "da Vinci" part doesn't even refer to Leonardo but rather his father: his full name was Leonardo di ser Piero da Vinci, or Leonardo, son of ser Piero of Vinci. Calling him "Da Vinci" (oh, and the "d" is never supposed to be capitalized) would be like giving Joe, son of Bob from Akron the surname "From Akron." Surnames as we use them today didn't exist in Leonardo's time, so the whole "Da Vinci" thing is an attempt to shoehorn Renaissance names into a 20th-/21st-century template. Mpaniello ( talk) 22:34, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
No, my argument is that Da Vinci was not *Leonardo da Vinci's* surname, nor has it ever been accepted as such outside of the confusion caused by Dan Brown. It doesn't matter in the slightest if anybody else has had Da Vinci as a surname; the only point relevant to this discussion is that Leonardo didn't. But anyway, I provided you with a source, and if you check out any online (or printed) art dictionary or encyclopedia you'll see the same thing. Mpaniello ( talk) 23:30, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
ETA: I just looked at your link, and they only give two people with the surname, and one of them is a stage name. The other one is incorrectly given as the surname of Pierino, the nephew of Leonardo. However, Vasari, the source of the article, doesn't give it as his surname. Most importantly, though, the list of people with the surname Da Vinci doesn't list Leonardo, so your link only supports my argument. Mpaniello ( talk) 23:36, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
This is not merely a nonsensical argument, but a sloppy one. Obviously you don't like the construction, and I agree it's no more proper grammar than any other use of a placename as a surname, but COMMONNAME is clear, and your personal approval here is not required. I advise you to drop the stick. Ravenswing 00:28, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
Ravenswing, da Vinci is not a proper name nor has it ever been used or accepted as such by anyone other than Dan Brown and those who take his words at face value. You've been working under a faulty assumption. Don't take my word for it, do a bit of research. Read some online dictionaries and encyclopedias of art and artists and tell me how many of them put Leonardo under D or V instead of L. Just one credible source, please. Mpaniello ( talk) 00:38, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
No, you aren't paying attention. You list a bunch of *modern* place names in support of your argument, but they're neither here nor there: Da Vinci has never been accepted as *Leonardo da Vinci's* surname. The practice was popularized by Dan Brown's book, which is why I keep mentioning it. The only point that matters is that Da Vinci has never been accepted as *Leonardo da Vinci's* surname, any more than Of Nazareth has been accepted as Jesus's surname. Again, look in any dictionary or encyclopedia or artists and tell me how many list him under D or V instead of L. Just one source, please. Mpaniello ( talk) 00:58, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
(1) I don't know where you got the idea from that the governing factor for WP:COMMONNAME is what is in art history books, but that is utterly, utterly false. It's what's in all English-language sources. A high school or a Martian crater named "Da Vinci" matter exactly as much towards establishing common usage as the Oxford Dictionary of Art History.
(2) As such, whether Brown's book (which I've never read and which was published when I was in my forties) has impelled more people to believe that "da Vinci" was a surname as we know it is utterly, frigging irrelevant. COMMONNAME -- and Wikipedia -- is blissfully unconcerned with the motives or rationales as to why people/institutions/entities use names the way they do, or the dates upon which they start doing so. It's entirely a binary deal: do they or don't they?
(3) Your stipulation that the mere construction of "da Vinci" has never been accepted as a surname is false on the face of it, and also false generally. There are numerous counterexamples to your argument, including Palestrina, Ockeghem, de Ventadorn, de Girona, de Troyes, de Machaut, de Wycombe, da Correggio, and so many others. What is "accepted" (or not) as da Vinci's surname is not your unilateral decision to make, any more than the common practice of identifying medieval and High Renaissance figures by placenames -- or the use of territorial surnames generally, a practice over a thousand years old -- is yours to overturn.
(4) You are required to obtain consensus for contentious changes. We do not need to refute your premise to your satisfaction; you need to prove your premise to the satisfaction of a consensus. If you do not obtain that consensus, your only legitimate option is to lose gracefully and move on. Ravenswing 01:45, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
This might not be the construction you yourself prefer, or you yourself think is right, but that's not the issue. The issue is whether there's consensus to change every such construction on Wikipedia to support your preference. So far, no such consensus has materialized. Ravenswing 03:12, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
This is such a specious argument. It's like saying Leif Erikson's last name isn't his surname because it just translates to "son of Erik." GMAB. Toddst1 ( talk) 04:16, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
@ Mpaniello:, I don't care what Lenny's last name is (if he has one), but do wish you'd stop edit-warring over the topic. Recommend the article be restored to its status-quo, then iron out a consensus 'here' for what to do, while the page is under protection. GoodDay ( talk) 22:15, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
add a short description {{short description|Technology used in midieval Europe}}
.
lettherebedarklight,
晚安,
おやすみなさい,
ping me when replying
13:36, 29 June 2022 (UTC)